To have an upper house or not . . . really it's a question of accountability versus getting things done. Sir Joh (who, by the way, did not invent the gerrymander but benefited greatly from it) certainly got a lot done, but did not have to worry about accountability or review. A lot of what is good about Queensland came from his 'rule', but so does a lot of what is wrong with this state. Similarly, Peter Beattie (whose leadership, coupled with the National Party's political non-existence, prompted me to vote Labor for the first time ever) is getting a lot done but now, as the honeymoon draws to a close, is less interested in whether or not Queenslanders want his party's developments. But will an upper house change that? The federal senate is detached from the needs and desires of Australians - why would a state senate be any different?

I was recently asked to comment on a forthcoming (4 May) paper on this topic by J R Nethercote. In my view the problem is the prevailing poor ethos and standards in Queensland, together with public attitudes of apathy and of expectation that the government will "do something" when they have a problem. I don't think that the low standards of public life in Queensland can be remedied by institutional change - there would first have to be a recognition of prevailing problems and their long term costs. Not much sign of that, and no obvious incentive for the powers-that-be to subject themselves to public interest scrutiny.

I've dealt with other states in my work, and met a number of premiers and state ministers. I think that any state is lucky to have 3-4 good ministers - we haven't had a decent Treasurer since De Lacey - an argument against having so many governments rather than for any particular institutional arrangement.

I can tell you that in the State of NSW cross bench politicians in the Senate are able to bring in ammendments to keep check on the absolute power of the Iemma Government.

The recent Major Development Bill proposed by ALP NSW Iemma Govt. would have removed Councils from approving major developments and give Frank Sartor, Minister for Planning, absolute unfettered powers to alone approve major developments that Councils were hesitant to approve.

Gordon Moyes and Fred Nile met with the deputation of 150 Councils in NSW and drafted ammendments that placed the Mayors of Councils to head the approving body of major developments in their elected area. Without the Senate the ALP Iemma Government would weild absolute power, and Ministers only would be the final authority.

The deputation of Councils got their ammendments approved through the members holding the balance of power in the Senate.

Just give us new states, North, Central and Sth Western Qld and let SEQ Barbie World achieve the cesspit status it seems hellbent on turning itself into. Did the Titanic have an upper house?

Bravo Nick and Perseus

My apprehension was that no one had noticed or cared for the rapid decline since 1998 of age old ethical standards and effective watchdogs over the engine room of Government.

So “successful” has been the rapid erosion in regard for Queenslander’s lawful rights and remedies at the helmsmanship of his Queensland counterpart that Premier Mike Rann noted how easy it would be for him also to govern his State without the bother of an Upper House.

Mr Rann’s recent re election was chiefly due to his central platform of pledging to abolish the South Australian Upper House in this term.

Never mind, Shonga you have little time before your wish list has been fully realised.